Accented Visualization in Digital Industry Applications

Exploring the status of the human operator in Industry 4.0: A systematic review

“…Robotics could increase isolated work and reduce the contact with co-workers, which can contribute for the workers' perception of losing control over their professional practices and over the collective criteria used for performing work in quality and health (Bobillier Chaumon et al, 2019 ). For example, Ivaschenko et al ( 2019 ) developed an augmented reality-supported learning setting, in which supervision by a fellow human worker was substituted by automation, and the impacts of this change for workers' health and wellbeing were not evaluated. If the worker collective assumes a protective role when workers are confronted with work constraints, what resources will they have to develop facing the weakening of the collective activity, when they are expected to interact more with robotic systems than with their co-workers (Blštáková et al, 2020 )?…”

“…For instance, in the study of Udayangani et al ( 2019 ), through the development of new automated workstations which control cycle times, performing levels, and the pace of production through alert systems, the workers' operational leeway was not considered. In the aforementioned proposed augmented reality-supported workstation developed by Ivaschenko et al ( 2019 ), the authors intended to prescribe task order, which ultimately ended up restricting the available leeway workers had to develop their activity and ignoring the fact that “workers are not static elements of a complex hierarchical system but are people with knowledge and skills” (May et al, 2015 , p. 103). In the literature review developed by Schloegl et al ( 2017 ) reflections on how operators and their variability, differences, professional paths, and other characteristics of the real work activity were also not included in the process of development of assistance systems, even though they used case studies and considered the main tasks developed by the operators.…”

“…I4.0 technologies were described through case studies on specific components, which included both implementation and trial studies, as well as their expected outcomes and limits. Richert et al, 2016b;Kolbeinsson et al, 2017;Langfinger et al, 2017;Thomay et al, 2018;Ivaschenko et al, 2019;Minnetti et al, 2019;Pavel et al, 2019;Baldissone et al, 2020;Digiesi et al, 2020;Fruggiero et al, 2020;Gualtieri et al, 2020;Kadir and Broberg, 2020;Santo et al, 2020;Shi et al, 2020;Van Acker et al, 2020;Agnusdei et al, 2021. RQ2: How is the play in these contexts. Kolbeinsson et al, 2017;Marrella and Mecella, 2017;Schloegl et al, 2017;Badri et al, 2018;Mark et al, 2019;Thun et al, 2019;Udayangani et al, 2019;Ahmad et al, 2020;Blštáková et al, 2020;Broday, 2020;Cimini et al, 2020;Gajšek et al, 2020;Gazzaneo et al, 2020;Gualtieri et al, 2020;Hoyer et al, 2020;Kaasinen et al, 2020;Broberg, 2020, 2021;Longo et al, 2020;Saabye et al, 2020;Sony and Naik, 2020;Chistyakova et al, 2021;Di Carlo et al, 2021;…”

“…Interface which enables the operator to, through virtual information, access and view the real environment via technology (Langfinger et al, 2017;Baldissone et al, 2020;Gajšek et al, 2020). It can facilitate decision-making processes as it allows the development of interactive user interfaces (Langfinger et al, 2017;Ivaschenko et al, 2019).…”